Koko78 Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Well yeah. Trump made it a point during his campaign to call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. Rudy Giuliani went on the news and admitted outright Trump had asked him to do the Muslim ban but legally. These sorts of statements are admissible evidence pertaining to the intent of the EO. The EO in context of these statements, and only in context of these statements, was decided to be unconstitutional. If Clinton had won and issued the same exact order there would be no such context and the same argument wouldn't have been valid. So the EO would have stood. If Trump and his surrogates had used any sort of restraint at all the EO would have stood. But because they constantly open their big mouths they are constantly incriminating themselves on future legal matters. He has no one to blame but himself. I suggest that you research the case law on campaign rhetoric and whether or not they have any relevance to later acts before you bury yourself even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 I suggest that you research the case law on campaign rhetoric and whether or not they have any relevance to later acts before you bury yourself even further. Research? no facts needed just some innuendo, hyperbole and anonymous sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Well yeah. Trump made it a point during his campaign to call for a ban on Muslim immigrants. Rudy Giuliani went on the news and admitted outright Trump had asked him to do the Muslim ban but legally. These sorts of statements are admissible evidence pertaining to the intent of the EO. The EO in context of these statements, and only in context of these statements, was decided to be unconstitutional. If Clinton had won and issued the same exact order there would be no such context and the same argument wouldn't have been valid. So the EO would have stood. If Trump and his surrogates had used any sort of restraint at all the EO would have stood. But because they constantly open their big mouths they are constantly incriminating themselves on future legal matters. He has no one to blame but himself. Hillary, as a senator, voted for restrictions on visas to Muslims . And yet, the legal argument being put forth is that Trump's campaign rhetoric makes the order unconstitutional, whereas under Hillary it would have been constitutional despite previous legislative action. And you're honestly saying that that's a sound judicial principle? You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Research? no facts needed just some innuendo, hyperbole and anonymous sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 This is an absolute perversion of the legal and Constitutional process, and terrifyingly so. Statements made on the campaign trail have nothing to do with the text of an executive order. The NY judge's ruling on the initial EO (that's what's being discussed, right?) affirmed that 'irreparable harm' would be done to the petitioners and others likewise situated, and said there was a 'strong likelihood' that enforcing the EO would constitute a violation of constitutional due process and equal protection. The judge in Washington used similar language in issuing that state's TRO. IIRC it wasn't until the second EO was issued that Watson and Chuang argued that it disfavored a particular religious group, although it was pretty clear that particular argument was secondary to 'the irreparable and immediate damage' ruling. That lawyer for the ACLU is wrong IMO; those EO's wouldn't have passed muster no matter who issued them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Hillary, as a senator, voted for restrictions on visas to Muslims . And yet, the legal argument being put forth is that Trump's campaign rhetoric makes the order unconstitutional, whereas under Hillary it would have been constitutional despite previous legislative action. And you're honestly saying that that's a sound judicial principle? You're an idiot. Voting on restrictions to visas that predominantly affect Muslims wouldn't have been unconstitutional - that's my point. The intent is what matters. The president can stop immigration from any country he damn well pleases too, but not if it's discriminating based on religion. Again, if Trump and surrogates hasn't made it clear what the intent of the EO was - to stop Muslims from entering the country - it probably would have passed muster. I'm also not familiar with the vote you're talking about. If you could source me I'd appreciate it. My opinion on this subject is far from settled. Oh and try and stay away from the ad hominem. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Another point in favor of that explanation is that Trump has always insisted the Russia investigation is much ado about nothing. So he either fired Comey because he (Trump) was lying all this time, and thereby impulsively and precipitously exposes his own statements as lies. Or he fired Comey for some other reason, impulsively and precipitously...and not realizing that it would make his previous statements look like lies. Which, either way...five-alarm moron. And another reminder...not eight hours before Comey was fired, Congressional Democrats were calling for his head because of the discrepancies in Comey "misled" the Senate Judiciary Committee with his testimony, which required written "clarification" from the FBI. HOW !@#$ING EASY would it have been to wait a couple of days and ask Comey to resign for his mishandling of the Clinton case as evidenced by his clearly inconsistent testimony. Get what you want, get a politcal win by giving Senate Democrats what they want, insulate yourself from any blowback by indirectly engaging Senate Democrats in the decision. But no...let's just poke the situation with a sharp stick, and make Comey the anti-Trump hero to people who not eight hours earlier wanted him drawn and quartered as a pro-Trump stooge. It's actually pretty hard to be that stupid accidentally. You almost have to put some effort into it. Quite a few of our "progressive" dementors who habituate this site do precisely that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 Voting on restrictions to visas that predominantly affect Muslims wouldn't have been unconstitutional - that's my point. The intent is what matters. The president can stop immigration from any country he damn well pleases too, but not if it's discriminating based on religion. Again, if Trump and surrogates hasn't made it clear what the intent of the EO was - to stop Muslims from entering the country - it probably would have passed muster. I'm also not familiar with the vote you're talking about. If you could source me I'd appreciate it. My opinion on this subject is far from settled. Oh and try and stay away from the ad hominem. Thanks. You think what you wrote makes you less of an idiot? Bold strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 Fake News: NYT Journalist Behind Comey Memo Admits He NEVER Saw It (Video) Original Article Michael Schmidt, the New York Times “journalist” behind the alleged “Trump-Comey Memo”, told fake news anchor, Brian Williams, that he has NOT seen the memo Comey allegedly wrote. Schmidt stumbled over his words as he commented to Williams, “Someone that had seen [the memo] had recounted details to me.” All the news that's fit to fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Maiden Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) No matter what side you're on, this is funny ! Trump is definitely giving these guys a lot of material.... Edited May 19, 2017 by Iron Maiden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 From F.H. BUCKLEY: Comey’s actions don’t show any Trump ‘obstruction’ The best evidence that that’s what Trump meant and how Comey understood it is what happened next: Nothing. Comey didn’t say anything about shutting down the investigation. And he didn’t resign. If Comey had been ordered to stand down, I expect he would’ve quit. He didn’t — which suggests he didn’t think he had to abandon the investigation. Nor did he, it seems. Testifying before the Senate last week, acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe, a Comey loyalist and Democrat, said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.” Before we rush to judgment, therefore, recall that false rumors have been squelched before. For example, based on anonymous sources, The New York Times has reported that Trump held up funding for the Russian investigation. However, this was debunked by McCabe. McCabe also rejected the idea that a special prosecutor was needed, as the FBI hadn’t been interfered with and would carry out the investigation scrupulously and thoroughly. Squelching false rumors is supposed to be one of the functions of the press, but alas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 19, 2017 Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 Fake News: NYT Journalist Behind Comey Memo Admits He NEVER Saw It (Video) Original Article Michael Schmidt, the New York Times “journalist” behind the alleged “Trump-Comey Memo”, told fake news anchor, Brian Williams, that he has NOT seen the memo Comey allegedly wrote. Schmidt stumbled over his words as he commented to Williams, “Someone that had seen [the memo] had recounted details to me.” All the news that's fit to fake. So? He was told about it and its contents. Don't worry bobo, Mueller will see it. Mueller will see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 So? He was told about it and its contents. Don't worry bobo, Mueller will see it. Mueller will see it Jamie Mueller. That was a good Mueller. You know who was a bad Mueller, ferris buehler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) @nytimes What President Trump told Russian officials about firing James Comey http://nyti.ms/2pTMns7 @davidfrum Poetic justice will be if Ex-president Trump must fly home commercial, just like ex-Director Comey Edited May 19, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 LOL......................another Friday afternoon.......another (supposed) "bombshell" from the NYT Hilariously transparent B.S................just in time so that reporters can get a jump on the weekend's marching orders read the story for the source........................Naaaaahh, I'll give it to you..............According to “an unnamed American official” In other words, Trump fired Comey to get more "flexibility," and wanted Russian diplomats to "transmit that message to Vladimir." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 @nytimes What President Trump told Russian officials about firing James Comey http://nyti.ms/2pTMns7 @davidfrum Poetic justice will be if Ex-president Trump must fly home commercial, just like ex-Director Comey The only source I believe at this point is Trump's tweets. Everything else seems so contrived, his tweets are the only thing I'm sure don't have any thought behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 The only source I believe at this point is Trump's tweets. Everything else seems so contrived, his tweets are the only thing I'm sure don't have any thought behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 The only source I believe at this point is Trump's tweets. Everything else seems so contrived, his tweets are the only thing I'm sure don't have any thought behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 When you elect a reality television star you reap what you sow....constant, unhinged entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 The White House has essentially confirmed the NYT reporting. They're not going to bother trying to deny it. I'm not sure if this is really any worse than the other stuff that's come out but add it to the pile anyways. The WaPo story on the other hand is really dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts